Police act swiftly after gun purchases

I used to date a girl who worked in Human Resources in the same company that I did. I still saw her after I was laid off from the company and she told me that the morning before the layoff they had sent a list of the people that they were going to layoff and a rating on how much of a threat that the company thought they were. I have since found out that this is standard proceedure for most companies.

I understand why this guy probably needed an eval. However it gives the police no rights to confiscate his weapons from him unless he has been charged with a crime. Sure stop by the house, ask some questions and offer some psychiatric aid to this guy.

Otherwise just keep an eye on him for a little while until everything blows over.

However there are instances of people losing it years after the fact and going back to an old employer and shooting up the place. Some guy in Orlando a while back if I remember correctly went back 2 years after the fact.

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
Let us theorize momentarily ...

If the guy had gone back to his job where he had been laid off and shot the place up and killed some people, hell even if he just killed one person, and then the story came out the the local law enforcement had records of his multi-gun purchase just days before he went on a shooting spree ....

How many of you would be blaming the police force for not acting on their information and stepping in to intervene to stop this mans plans of recourse?

Police step in and stop this man from possibly killing people -
"The police don't care about us, they're out to take away our constitutional rights!"

Police do nothing about the info they have and this man kills people -
"The police don't care about us. They're out to kill us!"


So, which side of the arguement are you going to fall in to?

Was there even a single indication that his intention was to go and shoot people? No, so that in mind why don't they come to your place and haul you away because you might rob a bank. You might steal candy from a kid or you could just jay walk. Let's theorize on what you might be doing...

...and when they came for me there were none left to stand up and say anything. whats wrong with people and logic? precaution would be sending a black & white to the business to stop the guy IF he shows up. to detain someone for something you THINK they MIGHT do is to violate their civil rights. even if the man was mentally ill there was no excuse as mental illness isnt a crime last I checked. something is definitely wrong with what happened here. I'm not opposed to the fact that the man was watched after the fact IF he made it known that he intended retribution.

Confiscation is temporary. The guy passes his mental eval. than is able to go to sign for the release of his guns.

I realize this whole situation appears questionable on the surface, but if someone can make the credible claim that a person may be a danger to self or others and is armed, the cops can step in and "escort" the person to eval. assuming the person goes voluntarily (as the guy in the article did) as well as temporarily confiscate the weapons.

_________________________________
I know someone this happened to... the guy was distraught over a relationship and sent an email hinting, but not outright saying, he was going to commit suicide (also had guns in the house) so the receiver of the email called the cops, told them what was said and informed them of the weapons, the cops paid the person a visit, confiscated the weapons and escorted the dude (he went voluntarily) to the hospital. Upon release, the guy was able to retrieve the guns.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by Dermo


To buy a full auto AK-47 you need a special permit and that is IF you can find an actual full-auto AK. 98% of the AK's you will buy in the USA will be semi automatic. Even the "tactical" and Sniper rifle variants will be semi-automatic. Furthermore a fully automatic assault rifle is just as deadly as any other rifle. Infact assault rifle rounds aren't even the largest rounds you can legally purchase and by no means are they the largest bullets you can purchase. .

reply to post by LadySkadi


Not the same issue here. He didn't email anyone telling that he was gonna do anything.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Understood. But remember, we don't have all the facts. They have stated that information has not been released. We don't know whether he said anything or not.... he could have.
__________________________
Whether it's a civil rights violation and the cops stepped over the line is questionable and still up for debate.

Lack of information will not provide answers. Lack of critical thinking skills and basing opinion on an article blurb is not a reasonable or intelligent move... it's a knee-jerk response based on one's personal bias.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by LadySkadi]

They say he was pissed off which is understandable since he was fired. Any human losing their job would be. He would actually have to make a legimate threat before they have a right to consider him dangerous enough to warrant such actions.

Anyone who defends the police in this case....shame on you. It is BEYOND a fact that unless the man broke a law or was acting in a way that made him a threat to himself or others, by making threats or showing signs of delusion, then they should have him taken to a doctor.

But to take a man away ASSUMING that something MIGHT happen is a tragedy. If it were me, there would be a lawsuit to beat all lawsuits. Imagine the nerve of a cop to come and ' take you away' because he decided that you MIGHT do something at SOME point in time.

This is an OUTRAGE!! Of course, the damned COPS would just lock this poor man up forever, just in case...and the cops would lock US, any of us, up also if they thought that it MIGHT stop us from breaking one of their precious laws...the same ones they violate at will.

If the ACLU does not help this man then someone should. He is a prisoner of the POLICE!! the COPS made a judgement, WITHOUT A WARRANT...WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM PROFESSIONALS....just a COP deciding to snatch a man off the streets and throw him in a loony bin...all because he used his Rights.

I swear one day there will come a time when cops will be shaking in their boots at the mere thought of taking a citizen away like this...had he resisted and shot every one of those KIDNAPPING COPS, he would have been totally justified. Taking a man away with no warrant based on a ' maybe', is not only illegal, but UN-American...the cops in this case are traitors and enemies of the people and should be dealt with as such.

There is not enough information to even be having this discussion. Until they explain what happened everyone is just fabricating what happened out of their imaginations.

You don't know what their reasons were.

You don't know why his former employer made a report.

They may well have had cause if he made a threat. They may be waiting for the evaluation before making charges. A simple threat is a crime called assault. Just making a threat is cause.

Why not wait for the facts before throwing accusations around?

Originally posted by richierich

But to take a man away ASSUMING that something MIGHT happen is a tragedy. If it were me, there would be a lawsuit to beat all lawsuits. Imagine the nerve of a cop to come and ' take you away' because he decided that you MIGHT do something at SOME point in time.

This is an OUTRAGE!! Of course, the damned COPS would just lock this poor man up forever, just in case...and the cops would lock US, any of us, up also if they thought that it MIGHT stop us from breaking one of their precious laws...the same ones they violate at will.

I agree with your post richierich...

Welcome to police state USA.....the 'thought police' have made their entrance...

We will be seeing more of this in the near future...

reply to post by PsykoOps


HI!

It would be useful if people used that mushy stuff in their head called a brain - though reading some of these these posts I'm concerned that it might be the equivalent of an appendix!

The people in the office were concerned about the guy's behaviour. He then went out and bought a fair few high powered guns.... not the same as being arrested whilst in your home for considering a bank robbery or whatever turns you on....

Again - his behavioural pattern suggested potential danger...the agencies that are paid to 'prevent' crime (as opposed to solve it) reacted.

Believe me I'm not one who admres the majority of the stealth tax thieves but in this instance I belive they did the right thing.

Or. Would you prefere to be commenting on three or four innocent deaths...?

Peace!

reply to post by richierich


Hi!

The law originally was there to prevent crime - not solve it after it's too late.
Perhaps you would like a few more corpses to comment on? That way you can criticise the people you employ (if you are old enough to be paying tax that is?)

Peace!

Originally posted by The Wave


The people in the office were concerned about the guy's behaviour. He then went out and bought a fair few high powered guns.... not the same as being arrested whilst in your home for considering a bank robbery or whatever turns you on....

He purchased a few handguns and 1 rifle from what I read here. That is not "a fair few high powered guns". More accurate to say he went out and bought a few guns. Seems to me that is the only "evidence" that the "law" has.

Again - his behavioural pattern suggested potential danger

I fail to see how, I have purchased several firearms at a time. Gasp! Even when my life was less than perfect, such as after my divorce...guess I will avoid doing that in the future.

...the agencies that are paid to 'prevent' crime (as opposed to solve it) reacted.

There is a famous decision in DC where the court states the LEAs have NO obligation to help anyone, stop, or solve any crime...police are there to ensure order, and protect society's structure as a whole.

Believe me I'm not one who admres the majority of the stealth tax thieves but in this instance I belive they did the right thing.

With due respect not if they stepped outside the authority gifted to them by the citizens of this nation.

Or. Would you prefere to be commenting on three or four innocent deaths...?

Peace!

I can't predict the future and neither can anyone else, comments like that are pure emotional speculation.

Its no better than me saying "well there was no call by the man's former employer, they only went after him for his guns". We have no real way of knowing these kind of things...we can find out if the police broke the law they are paid to "enforce".

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Confiscation is temporary. The guy passes his mental eval. than is able to go to sign for the release of his guns.
_________________________________
[edit on 9-3-2010 by LadySkadi]

Only in theory...I had the misfortune of having a couple of my guns stolen almost 2 YEARS AGO. The guy was caught within a month and the cops called me and said they had my guns and they needed them for no more than a couple months to use as evidence, then I would be able to pick them up. So, I waited a few months and called, the detective I spoke to said it was good to go, and to come down and pick them up. I took time off work, went down to the station, lo and behold I was told ,"sorry sir, it doesnt work that way. You have to fill out this paperwork and wait 30 days to have the evidence released." I said ok, filled everything out, waited another month and came back. This time they couldnt find any record of my guns being there. I was infuriated. I asked for the detective I had spoken to, turns out he just retired! Another 2 months go by, finally I get a call... they found my guns! I go down there, expecting to just show them my ID and pick em up. Nope. Now they asked for the paperwork I had on them. It took me about a week to find all the original receipts and documents. Went back again. Guess what?!? Now they need to use it for evidence again, apparently the thief changed his plea to Not Guilty. I was told his court date was in 2 months. Another 2 months, come back again, oohhh they're still using it, the prosecutor doesnt want to release any evidence. Cant they just use a picture? I waited another... you guessed it 2 more months, called and I was told, we'll look into it and call you right back. Well, waited a week before calling again.

I think you guys get the point, after waiting a year and a half, I became so frustrated I went down to the station yet again, but this time I didnt even want the guns anymore, I just wanted to vent my disenchantment to anyone who would listen. I demanded to know what its going to take for me to get my guns back. Of course no one was helpful, no one knew anything, finally I speak to the "superior" on duty. I explained everything that had happened, how I was a victim of crime, and I was told over a year ago that I would be able to pick up my guns. This guy was nothing but a jerk, saying things like "well, why do you need your guns so bad anyways? What are you planning on doing?" I have no criminal record, and hearing someone treat me as one, when I was doing nothing wrong infuriated me. I told this guy exactly what I thought of him in a calm and civil fashion. Then he tells me, "unfortunately now you're being abrasive, showing an officer of the law that you may not be mentally sound to own a weapon. Dont expect to get em back now!" He laughed as he walked away.

WTF!???!

Sorry to vent, but my point being this guy is most likely never going to see his guns again, they'll either be melted down or end up in some cops private collection. Cops love to find guns, and they're so quick to relieve you of them, getting them back is like pulling teeth. I dont think LE's like civilians having weapons, just a theory

[edit on 9-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


Hi!

I guess I misread the thread; Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle - aplogies thought for a moment he had bout a 22 long rifle.....

Obvioulsy he had bought these for squirrel hunting?

Point is - he was reported by his colleagues....

Suppose the police should have done nothing - that way people with your negative approach could point yet another finger? Negatively as always.

Well - hope you or your loved ones never have to suffer the consequences of incompentence.

And regarding the law - in my country it is there to prevent....

Peace!





[edit on 9-3-2010 by The Wave]

reply to post by WhiteDevil013


Your story doesn't surprise me.

And a state-paid psychiatrist is going to side with who when it comes to saying whether or not this guy is 'crazy'? Dude could be perfectly normal, but one state-paid psychiatrist can declare him a loon within seconds.

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
So, which side of the arguement are you going to fall in to?

I fall on the side that says those who are willing to abdicate their liberty in the name of safety deserve neither.

He was pissed off about getting fired... and? How many people aren't disgruntled over getting fired? Where does it stop? If a man who's been fired gets flagged by the cops as a possible threat, then what's next? The guy who flips off someone in traffic after getting cut off? The dude who yells at the ump after a bad call during a baseball game? The man who participates in a protest outside their local government building? At what point, in your mind, is the line crossed?

Our Constitution does happen to have a due processes clause in regards to issues such as this. Not that the Constitution means much anymore.

I'm sorry but I just have to ask...

Did anyone catch this guys name?

I READ the article and no mention of his name... just...


"The Man" and "The Subject"


Why keep his name hidden? I think for the public's safety, they need to let people know who this guy is if they think he is really going to do something so that people can stay away from this "Man"...

AND NO I'M NOT SAYING HE WAS GOING TO DO ANYTHING IRRATIONAL
just because he purchased some guns, it just seems weird to me that if this was that big of a deal they would have mentioned this guys name...

Anyone find that odd? Maybe it has nothing to do with guns...

Just wondering